6 ms·

This is mostly good, but it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can

by jmull 5y ago

This is mostly good, but it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can spam you. The bill says they don’t have to allow spam, but specially allows “legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings”… which is spam unless one explicitly opts-in to it. I don’t appreciate the double-talk. This part of the bill is user hostile and should be deleted.

AndrewKemendo 5y ago
I'm legitimately curious how you would mandate platform portability and also prevent communication from the third party in the form of a law? The only way to do that is to mandate that the platform (Apple/Google) give the third party the ability to move the user, which it is doing here with the most universal identifier.
echelon 5y ago
That requirement isn't user hostile, and it's not even that bad. You have to give your address to people that ship you things. You used to have to use your email address to sign up for websites. Nobody complained. People used throwaway emails if needed. It's not like they're reading your files. Gatekeeping the means of contact is an asymmetry that allows Apple and Google to retain power. Remember, these companies were trying to shrink wrap all of us and sell/tax access. An artificial world impossible to operate in without them. This act needs to go a step further and guarantee web downloads of apps independent of app stores as a first class construct. It also needs to allow runtimes and alternative web browsers specifically to combat Apple. Furthermore, it should disallow devices from coming with a default app store or default browser. (Similar to the EU's browser choice screen for Microsoft Windows.) Then we'll have a fair mobile world for the first time ever. Apple and Google will still make a metric ton of money. They'll also be able to start focusing more on future endeavors and innovations, which would be good for them and for us.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Is it even necessary? An app store could simply require that users make an account. That allows them to harvest your email at time of account creation, and provides users choice of which email address will be shared. And it's fully above-board.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Good catch. I definitely do not want this. I don't even understand why it would be necessary. I really don't want to be forced to maintain separate e-mail accounts for app stores just to quarantine the inevitable flow of spam.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  tbh, email address aliases are the only thing keeping my inbox sane these days.
_Nat_ 5y ago
> it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can spam you Which part of the text says this? I did see: > (b) INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS.—A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings. But that part doesn't seem to be requiring app-stores to hand over emails, but rather merely prohibits app-stores from controlling communications. Which would seem to be related to, e.g., ["Apple charged over 'anti-competitive' app policies"](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56941173 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56941173), 2021-04-30: > "At the core of this case is Spotify's demand they should be able to advertise alternative deals on their iOS app, a practice that no store in the world allows," it said in a statement.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > > "At the core of this case is Spotify's demand they should be able to advertise alternative deals on their iOS app, a practice that no store in the world allows," it said in a statement. Which is a ridiculous assertion for Apple to make. Best Buy doesn't control what manufacturers ship in side their boxes. If I buy something from Logitech chances are something in there will mention I can go to logitech.com and buy direct at some point, and if they provide a 10% off coupon or note that some things are cheaper there, Bust Buy isn't going to really know about it much less have anything to say about it. Best Buy might not be happy it there's a coupon for some other non-manufacturer marketplace, but there's not really an incentive for manufacturer to include something like that anyway. And just to drive home how completely similar the types of things sold are, there are plenty of hardware (and software, at least in the past) offerings that Best Buy sells that have a subscription element that Best Buy gets no cut of.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    No, it's pretty reasonable - Apple wants their cut (for developing iOS & the hardware), so advertising "hey we don't sell via the App Store, go to our website to purchase" is effectively driving sales via iOS without paying Apple for making that possible.
Borgz 5y ago
This is incorrect. I do think that section 3(b) is unnecessary and should probably be removed, but preventing app stores from interfering in communications between developers and users is obviously not the same thing as requiring app stores to give user contact information to developers.

by jmull 5y ago

AndrewKemendo 5y ago

I'm legitimately curious how you would mandate platform portability and also prevent communication from the third party in the form of a law? The only way to do that is to mandate that the platform (Apple/Google) give the third party the ability to move the user, which it is doing here with the most universal identifier.

echelon 5y ago

That requirement isn't user hostile, and it's not even that bad. You have to give your address to people that ship you things. You used to have to use your email address to sign up for websites. Nobody complained. People used throwaway emails if needed. It's not like they're reading your files. Gatekeeping the means of contact is an asymmetry that allows Apple and Google to retain power. Remember, these companies were trying to shrink wrap all of us and sell/tax access. An artificial world impossible to operate in without them. This act needs to go a step further and guarantee web downloads of apps independent of app stores as a first class construct. It also needs to allow runtimes and alternative web browsers specifically to combat Apple. Furthermore, it should disallow devices from coming with a default app store or default browser. (Similar to the EU's browser choice screen for Microsoft Windows.) Then we'll have a fair mobile world for the first time ever. Apple and Google will still make a metric ton of money. They'll also be able to start focusing more on future endeavors and innovations, which would be good for them and for us.

klyrs 5y ago
Is it even necessary? An app store could simply require that users make an account. That allows them to harvest your email at time of account creation, and provides users choice of which email address will be shared. And it's fully above-board.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Good catch. I definitely do not want this. I don't even understand why it would be necessary. I really don't want to be forced to maintain separate e-mail accounts for app stores just to quarantine the inevitable flow of spam.

jszymborski 5y ago
tbh, email address aliases are the only thing keeping my inbox sane these days.

_Nat_ 5y ago

> it forces Apple/Google to hand over your email address (or other means of communication) to anyone you download an app from so they can spam you Which part of the text says this? I did see: > (b) INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS.—A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings. But that part doesn't seem to be requiring app-stores to hand over emails, but rather merely prohibits app-stores from controlling communications. Which would seem to be related to, e.g., ["Apple charged over 'anti-competitive' app policies"](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56941173 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56941173), 2021-04-30: > "At the core of this case is Spotify's demand they should be able to advertise alternative deals on their iOS app, a practice that no store in the world allows," it said in a statement.

kbenson 5y ago
> > "At the core of this case is Spotify's demand they should be able to advertise alternative deals on their iOS app, a practice that no store in the world allows," it said in a statement. Which is a ridiculous assertion for Apple to make. Best Buy doesn't control what manufacturers ship in side their boxes. If I buy something from Logitech chances are something in there will mention I can go to logitech.com and buy direct at some point, and if they provide a 10% off coupon or note that some things are cheaper there, Bust Buy isn't going to really know about it much less have anything to say about it. Best Buy might not be happy it there's a coupon for some other non-manufacturer marketplace, but there's not really an incentive for manufacturer to include something like that anyway. And just to drive home how completely similar the types of things sold are, there are plenty of hardware (and software, at least in the past) offerings that Best Buy sells that have a subscription element that Best Buy gets no cut of.
- judge2020 5y ago
  No, it's pretty reasonable - Apple wants their cut (for developing iOS & the hardware), so advertising "hey we don't sell via the App Store, go to our website to purchase" is effectively driving sales via iOS without paying Apple for making that possible.

Borgz 5y ago

This is incorrect. I do think that section 3(b) is unnecessary and should probably be removed, but preventing app stores from interfering in communications between developers and users is obviously not the same thing as requiring app stores to give user contact information to developers.